Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:54:53 +0100
Struan, Squad
Struan wrote in reply to me:
>I think that the MoQ has to have practical value if it is to be worth
>anything and the only possible practical value I can see for it is in the
>field of ethics. If there is some other area where it might be useful other
>than as an intellectual exercise, then I would be very happy to hear about
>it.
I absolutely agree that the Metaphysics of Quality, or any other would-be
metaphysics, has to have practical value to be worth anything. And I agree
with you on the ethical issue, if this is your view, that there is a gap to
be filled before MoQ can be said to be a working ethical system, whatever
that is. I do have hopes that MoQ can contribute to ethics, and this hope
is what makes me, and will make me, pursue this issue - as long as I still
have hope.
On the more practical side, I myself find Pirsig's metaphysical ideas
valuable as that, a metaphysics. A metaphysics is what unites knowledge,
and as such it plays its part between and around fields of knowledge. I use
Pirsig's, and similar, ideas in the philosophy and methodology of science,
with the practical aim of doing research which has a say on sustainable
development, inquiring into the interaction of man and nature, especially
concerning agriculture in its broadest sense.
<snip>
>With the greatest respect, I'm not really sure my personal view is relevant
>to this forum. I have merely endeavoured to point out flaws in the MoQ and
>to explain what I see as its true motivation. I would equally respectfully
>suggest that most good bookshops will be able to get you the books I have
>suggested and that you would find them a most worthwhile investment as they
>directly relate to your views as you have put them here.
Perhaps I will get around to Berlin and MacIntyre at some point, at least
you have made me curious.
>This sounds a bit
>like a cop out, but I don't want to turn myself into a spokesman for Berlin
>or MacIntyre, not least because I am not capable of doing them justice and
>the primary sources are there for all to see. I hope you will allow me to
>continue merely to analyse the MoQ rather than postulate an entirely
>separate ethical system.
There is no 'neutral stance', not even approximately, when it comes to
questions of metaphysics and ethics. There is no dry land upon which to
stand and discuss the swampy nature of different ethical systems. I am not
saying it is wrong to enter into a critical discussion of a specific
metaphysics or ethics, but I find it wrong to do so without half an eye on
ones own stance. This is a very difficult practice, and perhaps it is
understandable that many people refrain from such strenuous exercise.
As far as I am concerned there are two extremes, play the game - or go for
real. I enjoy game-playing myself, and game-playing is part of the game :-)
But if we go all virtual, and there is no for real left, then I am out. For
me, our dialogues are very much for real, despite the relieving veil of
play. I hope you are for real too, Struan; I always hope you virtual
persons behind my screen are for real -- are you?
>Having said that, the basic position of Berlin seems to be that there is no
>objectivity in morals, that people are the best judges of themselves. But he
>emphasises pluralism, empathy, understanding and respect, historical context
>and the use of reason.
I can fully agree with Berlin on this.
<snip>
>In the context of the MoQ I would suggest that the limitation is that it is
>irrational. On this forum we have the odd situation of people agreeing that
>it is irrational yet trying to argue that it is still rational in a
>fundamental way. This is surely a contradiction.
I do not see this contradiction. But I agree that the role of rationality,
how we reconcile ourselves with our powers of reason is a very basic
question, perhaps the most basic question in philosophy. Here on Lila Squad
we are generally aware of the limits of reason, this is part of why we are
here, because Pirsig's philosophical books highlight the limits of reason.
Yet reason is what philosophy is about. Is it a contradiction to rationally
discuss the limits of rationality? I don't think so. This is after all the
very distinctive feature of intellect, self-awareness.
The question is not really whether we should use our 'feeling', we cannot
do otherwise, we cannot live by reason alone. But I do not find this an
argument against better reason. Quite contrary, I find that the dominating
rationality today leaves much to better, the most essential being a partial
blindness to its own limits. We have to acknowledge that, although reason
is our common means of finding our way forward, reason is always limited.
I take Metaphysics of Quality, and its relatives, to be a step forward
towards greater self-awareness, towards a reason that is more aware of its
own limits. Yet the proper role of reason remains a pivotal philosophical
and existential question.
<snip>
>Beautifully put. But Pirsig is forwarding a resolution which has no
>empirical evidence to substantiate it. Is not altogether more 'reasonable'
>to take a non-cognitivistic resolution and simply say that ethical language
>is not descriptive and indeed that ethics itself is not a form of knowledge?
>Of course if we are wanting to be unreasonable then that is fine with me, so
>long as we realise that we are being unreasonable.
I do not consider the probing of Pirsig's ideas completed, - the probing
has barely started.
As I said above, I do not find it 'reasonable' to abandon reason, nor to
have blind faith in reason ;-) And I definitely find ethics to be a form of
knowledge, the kind of knowledge we call wisdom, perhaps. There is
something like a knowledge of the good life, a knowledge which has little
if anything to do with intelligence. This, I believe, is what Pirsig was
after, this is what I am pursuing. I am using my powers of reason, and I am
using my feeling and empathy. However limited they are, both have their
part to play.
Regards
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST